affiliate_mrge_get_earnings_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only aggregation operation ('Summarise earnings', 'Returns an EarningsSummary') and adds return details like 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays'. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or rate limits, but the non-mutating nature is strongly implied and the output shape is partially described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides a concrete usage example, and the third describes the return value and links to a related tool. All sentences earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a schema with zero parameter descriptions, the description is quite complete. It covers the main purpose, provides usage guidance, and hints at the return shape. It does not explain all 8 parameters (like pagination controls or age filters), but it gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool for typical summary queries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains date window ('from', 'to'), breakdown by 'programme' (programmeId), and 'status' explicitly, and mentions an output field. However, it does not clarify params like 'limit', 'cursor', 'maxAgeDays', or 'minAgeDays', leaving those ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Summarise earnings on mrge across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It uses a specific verb ('summarise'), names the resource ('mrge earnings'), and clarifies scope ('date window', 'breakdowns'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_transactions by emphasizing aggregated results rather than raw records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and gives a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also points to a complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records,' providing clear alternative usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.